Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[MikeG]

...oops......

 

[Dave Rogers]

What I decided?? [usual bizarre rantings deleted]

I answered your questions. The fact that you refuse to accept the answers is your own problem. Now, back to the question you keep evading: how do you explain the fact that the air pressure at the top of Mount Everest is different to the air pressure at sea level?

Anything you say other than an answer to the above question will be dismissed as a red herring.

Dave

 

[MikeG]

You'll get another cut and paste job from another forum, Dave, like most other answers in the thread. It's a great way of not having to think.

-

I'd like Daniel to explain why he was so vehemently dismissive of flat earth theory 2 or 3 years ago, and yet its biggest disciple now.

 

[heymatto70]

Wait a second. If you've "pummelled" Einstein's theory of gravity, why aren't YOU the one written about and cited in physics textbooks?

 

[LSSBB]

The Missile's "RANGE" is 50 km.
LOS is 17.7 km.
The Missile REQUIRES LOS to engage targets.

And it can. When they are 50km away and above the horizon, such as air targets.

How can you "Target" (eye or scope) something out of your LOS (eye or scope) ??

You can't very well, thanks for repeating my point.

You can when they appear above the ravine, at the same distance.


This has to be an act on your part, or basic geometry questions should be avoided by you in the future.

 

[MikeG]

Wait a second. If you've "pummelled" Einstein's theory of gravity, why aren't YOU the one written about and cited in physics textbooks?

Conspiracy, obviously.

 

[erlando]

*snip* more deflecting

Please explain without deflecting to either your "gravity" skit or your "begging the question" skit or any of your countless other deflections; why is the atmospheric pressure on top of Mount Everest different to the atmospheric pressure at sea level?

You yourself admitted this, remember? Or are you suddenly claiming that the atmosphere has no atmospheric pressure? Or are you just implicitly admitting that you have no explanation?

 

[Elagabalus]

3. And Scientific Theories don't "DESCRIBE" they "EXPLAIN", Big Difference.


regards

OK, please explain or describe why there's an atmosphere on your flat earth.

 

[halleyscomet]

Not simply "Denying", "PUMMELING" THEN... Denying. Big Difference

Dude, have you considered getting a dog? given your recent posts I think you may need one.

 

[DGM]

Nothing beats the (real) name Strawberry Alarm Clock

"Toad the Wet Sprocket" would be close.

 

[HSienzant]

Daniel?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12118294&postcount=599

 

[CORed]

A question for Daniel (that I doubt he will answer). Why is it, that during a sunset or sunrise, clouds are illuminated by the sun when it is no longer (or not yet in a sunrise) visible on the ground?

 

[The Man]

Then that scuttles Newtonian 'gravity', so all that's left is Einstein's 'gr'.

Nope, as already noted general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limits.

Yes. However, I was laughing too hard to finish it.

Too bad, guess you missed the parts about it reducing to Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limits and resulting gravitational forces being inertial.

1. It's NOT an ACTUAL Scientific Theory.

2. So Relativity, "sr and gr" via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!

Sorry, I don't recall anything in the theory about it requiring your approval, acceptance or even understanding.

1. Primary School Falsification:

TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.

I mean c'mon now, let's reason together...can you Dilate/Bend/Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??

"FREEDOM" is a Concept also...can you Bend that?? lol

That which you are using to measure...isn't the thing you're measuring.

A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field bend also?
(The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) -- (The Football Field is analog to TIME)

So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!

See, if you had actually read the theory you might have been able to address the theory instead of the above pretense.

2. Grown-Up Falsification:

"Non-Locality"-- a brief synopsis: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html

Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity.

Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase "Spooky Action @ a Distance", then he and his buddies conjured a 'thought experiment', (SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935 ) in a feeble clumsy attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics.

Why? Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE.
(Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed" i.e., Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Scientific ####### --
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his 'thought experiment', it apparently covered the Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Science Mytho-Mathemagical Philosopher's Butt and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled.

BUT THEN...
In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein's 'alleged' Paradoxical thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

Then John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student...because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell's Paper.

And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY !! ...

Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdf

Then in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it "Yard" FOREVER !! Ergo, Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! ( *He got "De-Bunked"* )
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdf

Ever since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 1875 times, Without Exception!!! See...


New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: Speaking to the Landmark Experiment: Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html
"There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY".
Physicsworld April 20 2007: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality , also speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that, ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’

Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1874th Time), here:

"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".
Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.html

And another, just a Flurry of Blows...

"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., *Goodbye Realism* .
Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html

Who else wants to Chime In on Realism (??) ...

Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again).

"The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:

Door #1: Information (however they conjured that ?? ) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light.
'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE!!!

Door #2: Space and Time are Illusions.
'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE!!!

Take your pick...?

Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...

"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".
Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.
Colodny, Robert G; From Quarks to Quasars--Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986, p. 380

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 ....
( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [You, as it were] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.)
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?
I'll monitor the Presses!!

A "2FER"...'gravity' and Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism) PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion.

Once again had you actually read the theory you might have been able to actually address the theory. EPR thought experiment and subsequent tests, Bell's theorem, Wheeler's delayed-choice and quantum erasure experiments, I've read them all as well. As well as them having been discussed on different threads here. None directly refute either special or general relativity. Something you would know if you had actually read them.

Elephant Hurling Fallacy (x2). And 'wiki', eh






Ok. Elephant Hurling Fallacy (x2).

Nope, I asserted how those references direcly apply.

Errr... Scientific Laws "describe"; whereas Scientific Theories "EXPLAIN".

Moreover, The "Scientific" in 'Scientific Laws' is a Misnomer because they never enter into The Scientific Method -- ( "Science" -- 'Scientific' ), they are merely 'descriptions' of Natural Laws.


You couldn't pass it now, that's for sure.

Once again still not refuting a scientific theory being based on scientific laws

regards

Again, whatever.

 

[The Man]

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science (and they certainly don't "PREDICT" anything lol)...

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!!)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY."
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!!
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments---(Hypothesis TESTS).
A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!





So I'm up against Pseudo-Science. Yes, that's what I've been telling and illustrating to you guys for the entire thread.
You finally GOT IT!! kudos




regards

Nope, from your own citation....

HYPOTHESIS

Perhaps the most difficult and intriguing step is the development of a specific, testable hypothesis. A useful hypothesis enables predictions by applying deductive reasoning, often in the form of mathematical analysis.

It is a limited statement regarding the cause and effect in a specific situation, which can be tested by experimentation and observation or by statistical analysis of the probabilities from the data obtained.

Its validity or lack thereof is thus as limited as that specifically “limited statement”. What you are demonstrably up against are your own citations.

 

[LSSBB]

A question for Daniel (that I doubt he will answer). Why is it, that during a sunset or sunrise, clouds are illuminated by the sun when it is no longer (or not yet in a sunrise) visible on the ground?

I have a personal example of this phenomenon,. I've attached a picture I took at sunset from a Wal-Mart parking lot in Crestwood, Illinois.

According to Daniel's long disproved theory, this would put the Sun underground.

 

[EHocking]

Provide a Spherical Earth and I'll show you...?

btw: I said a compass wouldn't work South of a Spherical Equator.

Actually what you said was

That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?


regards

And ever since post 337 where I pointed out that is exactly what happens - you've been avoiding the subject with a passion.

You really must regret your assertion that a N.Hemisphere compass does indeed "bury the need in the ring" when used in the S.Hemisphere.

yes.
That is exactly what happens. The variation is up to 20^o.

The needle of a compass that works in the SH is balanced differently than one that works in the NH, due to exactly this fact that the horizontal and vertical components of the earth's magnetic field vary considerably in different locations

The compass manufacturers use 5 global zones and 5 corresponding “magnetic balancing zones”.

You have correctly pointed out yet another Fact that demonstrates that the earth is a globe and not a platter.

Feel free to ignore the assertion you made that demonstrates that the earth is a sphere.

I'll keep reminding you.

 

[threadworm]

1. You don't know that Venus, Titan and the gas giants are Spheres.

Those of us with telescopes very much know that they are.

I await the inevitable clumsily formatted copypasta.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, I don't recall anything in the theory about it requiring your approval, acceptance or even understanding.

The last alone could be too low a bar to clear.

Dave

 

[Craig4]

How can you "Target" (eye or scope) something out of your LOS (eye or scope) ??

Being as the earth is a spheroid, it's rather simple. You put an aircraft like an E2-C Hawkeye in the air. It can see over the curvature of the Earth and target for you. The seeker head locks onto the radar return of the E2 instead of the radar on the vessel.

 

[The Sparrow]

"Toad the Wet Sprocket" would be close.

Indeed!